What if time elapses between the writing of the get and the giving of the get? How does that affect how long a woman must wait after a divorce before remarrying? Does the clock start ticking from the signing or from the giving? From what point does the financial obligation of the husband to the wife in a ketuba go from being an obligation to being a loan, in which case it would then be canceled during a shmita year? There is a disagreement about in which case Rabbi Shimon allows time to elapse between the writing of the get and the signing. What if more than one day elapsed? There is another disagreement about a case where someone asked ten people to all write the get – what is the function of all of their signatures – are two viewed as witnesses and the others as fulfilling the husband’s stipulation or are all considered witnesses? What are the practical ramifications of each of the opinions?
Gittin 18
Share this shiur:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Gittin 18
וְאוֹתְבֵיהּ בְּכִיסְתֵּיהּ – דְּאִי מִפַּיְּיסָהּ תִּיפַּיַּיס, מַאי?
and puts it in his pocket without giving it to her, as he thought that if she appeases [mippayyesa] him he will be appeased, what is the halakha when he then does give it to her? Since the date on the document is incorrect, did the Sages institute an ordinance that such a bill of divorce should not be used?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מַקְדֵּים אִינָשׁ פּוּרְעָנוּתָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ.
Rava said to him: A person does not hasten a calamity on himself and will not ordinarily prepare a bill of divorce in advance. Rather, he will wait until he is ready to divorce his wife. Since this scenario is unlikely, the Sages did not see a need to institute an ordinance pertaining to it.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: גִּיטִּין הַבָּאִים מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, דְּמִיכַּתְבִי בְּנִיסָן וְלָא מָטוּ עַד תִּשְׁרֵי – מָה הוֹעִילוּ חֲכָמִים בְּתַקָּנָתָם? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנְהוּ, קָלָא אִית לְהוּ.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: When there are bills of divorce that come from a country overseas which are written, for example, in the month of Nisan, and they do not reach the woman until the month of Tishrei, what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance to date the bill of divorce? All of the concerns about an undated bill of divorce still apply. He said to him: Concerning these bills of divorce from overseas, it is public knowledge that they do not take effect from the date on which they were written. Therefore, if there is a conflict over produce the husband has sold, the woman must bring witnesses to testify as to when she received her bill of divorce.
אִיתְּמַר: מֵאֵימָתַי מוֹנִין לַגֵּט? רַב אָמַר: מִשְּׁעַת נְתִינָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה.
§ The Sages decreed that it is prohibited for a woman to remarry within three months of her divorce or her becoming a widow, in order to prevent a situation of doubt concerning the paternity of a child. It was stated: From when does one begin counting the three months with regard to a bill of divorce? Rav says: From the time of the giving of the bill of divorce, and Shmuel says: From the time of the writing of the bill of divorce.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, יֹאמְרוּ: שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים בְּחָצֵר אַחַת – זוֹ אֲסוּרָה וְזוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: זוֹ זְמַן גִּיטָּהּ מוֹכִיחַ עָלֶיהָ, וְזוֹ זְמַן גִּיטָּהּ מוֹכִיחַ עָלֶיהָ.
Rav Natan bar Hoshaya objects to this: According to the statement of Shmuel, now people will say: If two women who live in one courtyard received their bills of divorce at the same time, but the first document was written at the time of the divorce and the second one was written earlier, then this woman is still prohibited from remarrying, as three months have not yet passed from when her bill of divorce was written; and that woman is already permitted to remarry. This does not seem reasonable. Abaye said to him: This is not difficult. With regard to this woman, the date of her bill of divorce proves concerning her that she may not remarry yet; and with regard to that woman, the date on her bill of divorce proves concerning her that she may remarry already.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב, תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב: הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְנִשְׁתַּהָה שָׁלִיחַ בַּדֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, כְּשֶׁהִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ – צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים; וּלְגֵט יָשָׁן אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִתְיַיחֵד עִמָּהּ.
The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara explains: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav that the three-month count begins from when the bill of divorce is given: In the case of one who sends a bill of divorce to his wife, and the agent tarries on the way for three months, once the bill of divorce reaches her hand she must wait three months before remarrying. And one need not be concerned that it is an outdated bill of divorce, i.e., that the husband and wife were secluded after it was written, rendering the bill of divorce invalid, because he was not secluded with her during the time the bill of divorce was being delivered.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: הַמַּשְׁלִישׁ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ: אַל תִּתְּנֵהוּ לָהּ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, מִשֶּׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ – מוּתֶּרֶת לִינָּשֵׂא מִיָּד; וּלְגֵט יָשָׁן אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִתְיַיחֵד עִמָּהּ.
It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that the count begins from the time of the writing: In the case of one who is about to travel and deposits a bill of divorce for his wife with a trustee and says to him: Give it to her only after three months, once he gives it to her, she is permitted to marry immediately and is not required to wait an additional three months. And one need not be concerned that it is an outdated bill of divorce, as he was not secluded with her in the interim.
רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב פַּפֵּי וְרַב אָשֵׁי – עָבְדִי מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה, רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ – עָבְדִי מִשְּׁעַת נְתִינָה. וְהִלְכְתָא: מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה.
It is told that Rav Kahana and Rav Pappi and Rav Ashi would in practice count three months from the time of the writing, but Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would in practice count these three months from the time of the giving. And the halakha is that the counting begins from the time of the writing.
אִיתְּמַר: מֵאֵימָתַי כְּתוּבָּה מְשַׁמֶּטֶת?
§ The Gemara discusses another dispute between Rav and Shmuel with regard to documents. According to the terms of a marriage contract, a widow is entitled to payment of its value upon the death of her husband. By Torah law, all outstanding debts are canceled at the close of the Sabbatical Year. A woman need not take her marriage settlement as soon as her husband dies. The issue at hand is at what point the marriage contract generates a concrete debt that will be canceled by the Sabbatical Year. It was stated: From when is the debt established by a marriage contract canceled in the Sabbatical Year?
רַב אָמַר: מִשֶּׁתִּפְגּוֹם – וְתִזְקוֹף. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: פָּגְמָה – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא זָקְפָה, זָקְפָה – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּגְמָה.
Rav says: The marriage contract becomes like a debt and will be canceled in the Sabbatical Year from the time when the woman collects partial payment and establishes the rest as a debt in court. And Shmuel says: This occurs when she either collects partial payment although she did not establish it as debt, or she established the entire value of the marriage contract as a debt in court although she did not collect partial payment.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב, תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב: מֵאֵימָתַי כְּתוּבָּה מְשַׁמֶּטֶת? מִשֶּׁתִּפְגּוֹם וְתִזְקוֹף. פָּגְמָה וְלֹא זָקְפָה, זָקְפָה וְלֹא פָּגְמָה – אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּטֶת, עַד שֶׁתִּפְגּוֹם וְתִזְקוֹף.
With regard to this dispute, it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: From when is the debt established by a marriage contract canceled? From when she accepts partial payment and establishes the rest as a debt in court. However, if she accepted partial payment but did not establish the debt, or established the debt but did not accept partial payment, then it is not canceled until she accepts partial payment and establishes the debt.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: אוֹנֶס, וּקְנָס, וּפִיתּוּי, וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה – שֶׁזְּקָפָן בְּמִלְוָה, מְשַׁמְּטִין; וְאִם לָאו – אֵין מְשַׁמְּטִין. מֵאֵימָתַי נִזְקָפִים בְּמִלְוָה? מִשְּׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין.
It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: If the fine and damages paid by one who commits rape; or the fine paid by one who falsely claims his wife was not a virgin at the time of their wedding; or the fine paid for seduction; or the debt established by a woman’s marriage contract was established as a loan, then the Sabbatical Year cancels it. And if one did not establish these payments as loans, then the Sabbatical Year does not cancel them. From when is it considered that these payments have been established as a loan? From the time of standing trial, because the abstract obligation to pay becomes a debt once the court ruled that one is required to pay.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּתוּבָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין דָּמְיָא – מָה מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין נִכְתָּבִין בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתָּמִין בַּלַּיְלָה, אַף כְּתוּבָּה נִכְתֶּבֶת בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתֶּמֶת בַּלַּיְלָה. כְּתוּבְּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר רַב אִיכְּתוּב בַּיּוֹם וְאִיחֲתוּם בַּלַּיְלָה; הֲוָה רַב הָתָם וְלָא אֲמַר לְהוּ וְלָא מִידֵּי.
§ The Gemara discusses other aspects of the marriage contract. Shmuel said: A marriage contract is considered to be like a court enactment. Just as court enactments may be written during the day and then signed at night, and the fact that the writing and signing were not performed on the same day does not present a problem, so too, a marriage contract may be written during the day and then signed at night. It is told: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav’s marriage contract was written during the day and then signed at night, and Rav was there and he did not say anything to the people who wrote and signed it. This indicates that Rav agrees with the ruling of Shmuel.
לֵימָא כִּשְׁמוּאֵל סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? עֲסוּקִין בְּאוֹתוֹ עִנְיָן הֲווֹ. דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר רַבִּי צָדוֹק: לֹא שָׁנוּ, אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁאֵין עֲסוּקִין בְּאוֹתוֹ עִנְיָן, אֲבָל עֲסוּקִין בְּאוֹתוֹ עִנְיָן – כָּשֵׁר.
The Gemara asks: Shall we say he holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara rejects this: This cannot be proven from here because the scribe and witnesses were continuously engaged in that matter of writing the marriage contract, from when it was written in the day until they signed it at night, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok said: The Sages taught that a document written during the day and signed at night is invalid only when the scribe and witnesses were not continuously engaged in that matter, but if they were continuously engaged in that matter until nightfall, then it is valid.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר: אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? קָסָבַר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ, שׁוּב אֵין לוֹ פֵּירוֹת.
§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Shimon deems valid a bill of divorce written during the day and signed at night. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? He holds that once the husband has decided to divorce her, he no longer has the rights to the produce from his wife’s property, and it is clear that he has decided to divorce her when he writes a bill of divorce. Consequently, the woman obtains the rights to the produce from the moment the bill of divorce was written, regardless of when it was signed.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא הִכְשִׁיר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא לְאַלְתַּר, אֲבָל מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים – לֹא;
Reish Lakish says: Rabbi Shimon deems such a bill of divorce valid only if it is signed immediately, when the witnesses signed the bill of divorce during the night after it was written. However, if the delay in signing was from now, i.e., when the bill of divorce was written, until ten days have elapsed, i.e., when there is an extended delay, he does not deem it valid.
חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא פִּיֵּיס. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים; אִם אִיתָא דְּפַיֵּיס – קָלָא אִית לַיהּ לְמִילְּתָא.
Why not? Because we are concerned that perhaps he appeased his wife and engaged in sexual intercourse with her, thereby invalidating the bill of divorce. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if the delay in signing was from now until ten days later Rabbi Shimon deems it valid. There is no concern that he appeased her because if it is so that he appeased her, then the matter becomes public knowledge, and all would hear of it.
אִיתְּמַר: אָמַר לַעֲשָׂרָה ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״; אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁנַיִם מִשּׁוּם עֵדִים, וְכוּלָּם מִשּׁוּם תְּנַאי. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כּוּלָּם מִשּׁוּם עֵדִים.
§ It was stated that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagreed with regard to the following case: If the husband says to ten men: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He means that all of them should sign the bill of divorce. Two of them function as witnesses, and all the rest of them sign the bill of divorce only due to the stipulation that the husband had stated. He made the bill of divorce dependent upon all of them signing, but he did not mean that ten men need to actually function as witnesses. And Reish Lakish says: All of them function as witnesses.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״כּוּלְּכֶם״; וְהָא תְּנַן, אָמַר לַעֲשָׂרָה: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב וּשְׁנַיִם חוֹתְמִין! אֶלָּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ ״כּוּלְּכֶם״.
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which all of them have to sign? If we say that he did not say to them: All of you, but just said to them: You should write a bill of divorce for my wife, didn’t we learn in a mishna (66b) that if one said to ten people: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, then one would write, and two would sign, and not all ten of them are required to sign. Rather, the case of their dispute is when he said to them: All of you write a bill of divorce for my wife, and in this instance is was taught later on in that mishna that one person writes the bill of divorce and everyone else must sign it.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – דַּחֲתוּם בֵּי תְרֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ בְּיוֹמֵיהּ, וְאִינָךְ מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים. מַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם תְּנַאי – כָּשֵׁר; וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם עֵדִים – פָּסוּל.
The Gemara asks: What is the difference between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish; what is the difference if the rest of the men function as witnesses or just in order to fulfill the man’s stipulation? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case where two of them signed on that day and the rest signed not on the day it was written but from now until ten days later. According to the one who says that the other signatures are due to the stipulation, the bill of divorce is valid, because two witnesses signed the bill of divorce on the same day that it was written, and the stipulation was also fulfilled. And according to the one who says that all these people sign due to his wish that they all function as witnesses, it is invalid because not all the witnesses signed the bill of divorce on the day it was written.
אִי נָמֵי – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶם קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם תְּנַאי – כָּשֵׁר; לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם עֵדִים – פָּסוּל.
Alternatively, there is another difference between them, in a case where one of these ten people is found to be a relative of the husband or wife, or is otherwise found to be disqualified to serve as a witness. According to the one who says that the other signatures are due to the stipulation, this bill of divorce is valid because the disqualified person did not serve as a witness. He just signed the bill of divorce in order to fulfill the stipulation, and the bill of divorce has the signature of two qualified witnesses. According to the one who says that all these people sign due to the man’s wish that they all function as witnesses, the bill of divorce would be invalid, as is the case whenever one member of a group of witnesses is disqualified.
אִי חֲתִים בִּתְחִילָּה קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל; אָמְרִי לָהּ כָּשֵׁר, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ פָּסוּל. אָמְרִי לָהּ כָּשֵׁר – תְּנַאי הוּא; אָמְרִי לַהּ פָּסוּל – אָתֵי לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי בִּשְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא.
The Gemara adds another point of dispute: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that the other witnesses sign due to the husband’s stipulation, if a relative or other disqualified witness signed at the beginning, before two valid witnesses had signed, then some say the bill of divorce is valid and some say that it is invalid. Some say that it is valid because the request for ten signatures is a stipulation. Since these ten people are not meant to serve as witnesses and are meant only to fulfill the stipulation, it makes no difference if they signed at the beginning or at the end. Some say that it is invalid because there is a concern that the courts will come to confuse it with typical documents, and they will rely on disqualified witnesses in those cases.
הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ לַעֲשָׂרָה: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״; חֲתוּם בֵּי תְרֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ בְּיוֹמֵיהּ, וְאִינָךְ – מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ:
It is told: There was a certain person who said to ten men: Write a bill of divorce for my wife. Two of them signed that day and the others signed after a delay from now until ten days later. He came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to ask what the halakha is with regard to such a bill of divorce. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
Gittin 18
וְאוֹתְבֵיהּ בְּכִיסְתֵּיהּ – דְּאִי מִפַּיְּיסָהּ תִּיפַּיַּיס, מַאי?
and puts it in his pocket without giving it to her, as he thought that if she appeases [mippayyesa] him he will be appeased, what is the halakha when he then does give it to her? Since the date on the document is incorrect, did the Sages institute an ordinance that such a bill of divorce should not be used?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מַקְדֵּים אִינָשׁ פּוּרְעָנוּתָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ.
Rava said to him: A person does not hasten a calamity on himself and will not ordinarily prepare a bill of divorce in advance. Rather, he will wait until he is ready to divorce his wife. Since this scenario is unlikely, the Sages did not see a need to institute an ordinance pertaining to it.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: גִּיטִּין הַבָּאִים מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, דְּמִיכַּתְבִי בְּנִיסָן וְלָא מָטוּ עַד תִּשְׁרֵי – מָה הוֹעִילוּ חֲכָמִים בְּתַקָּנָתָם? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנְהוּ, קָלָא אִית לְהוּ.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: When there are bills of divorce that come from a country overseas which are written, for example, in the month of Nisan, and they do not reach the woman until the month of Tishrei, what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance to date the bill of divorce? All of the concerns about an undated bill of divorce still apply. He said to him: Concerning these bills of divorce from overseas, it is public knowledge that they do not take effect from the date on which they were written. Therefore, if there is a conflict over produce the husband has sold, the woman must bring witnesses to testify as to when she received her bill of divorce.
אִיתְּמַר: מֵאֵימָתַי מוֹנִין לַגֵּט? רַב אָמַר: מִשְּׁעַת נְתִינָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה.
§ The Sages decreed that it is prohibited for a woman to remarry within three months of her divorce or her becoming a widow, in order to prevent a situation of doubt concerning the paternity of a child. It was stated: From when does one begin counting the three months with regard to a bill of divorce? Rav says: From the time of the giving of the bill of divorce, and Shmuel says: From the time of the writing of the bill of divorce.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, יֹאמְרוּ: שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים בְּחָצֵר אַחַת – זוֹ אֲסוּרָה וְזוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: זוֹ זְמַן גִּיטָּהּ מוֹכִיחַ עָלֶיהָ, וְזוֹ זְמַן גִּיטָּהּ מוֹכִיחַ עָלֶיהָ.
Rav Natan bar Hoshaya objects to this: According to the statement of Shmuel, now people will say: If two women who live in one courtyard received their bills of divorce at the same time, but the first document was written at the time of the divorce and the second one was written earlier, then this woman is still prohibited from remarrying, as three months have not yet passed from when her bill of divorce was written; and that woman is already permitted to remarry. This does not seem reasonable. Abaye said to him: This is not difficult. With regard to this woman, the date of her bill of divorce proves concerning her that she may not remarry yet; and with regard to that woman, the date on her bill of divorce proves concerning her that she may remarry already.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב, תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב: הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְנִשְׁתַּהָה שָׁלִיחַ בַּדֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, כְּשֶׁהִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ – צְרִיכָה לְהַמְתִּין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים; וּלְגֵט יָשָׁן אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִתְיַיחֵד עִמָּהּ.
The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara explains: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav that the three-month count begins from when the bill of divorce is given: In the case of one who sends a bill of divorce to his wife, and the agent tarries on the way for three months, once the bill of divorce reaches her hand she must wait three months before remarrying. And one need not be concerned that it is an outdated bill of divorce, i.e., that the husband and wife were secluded after it was written, rendering the bill of divorce invalid, because he was not secluded with her during the time the bill of divorce was being delivered.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: הַמַּשְׁלִישׁ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ: אַל תִּתְּנֵהוּ לָהּ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, מִשֶּׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ – מוּתֶּרֶת לִינָּשֵׂא מִיָּד; וּלְגֵט יָשָׁן אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִתְיַיחֵד עִמָּהּ.
It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that the count begins from the time of the writing: In the case of one who is about to travel and deposits a bill of divorce for his wife with a trustee and says to him: Give it to her only after three months, once he gives it to her, she is permitted to marry immediately and is not required to wait an additional three months. And one need not be concerned that it is an outdated bill of divorce, as he was not secluded with her in the interim.
רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב פַּפֵּי וְרַב אָשֵׁי – עָבְדִי מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה, רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ – עָבְדִי מִשְּׁעַת נְתִינָה. וְהִלְכְתָא: מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה.
It is told that Rav Kahana and Rav Pappi and Rav Ashi would in practice count three months from the time of the writing, but Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would in practice count these three months from the time of the giving. And the halakha is that the counting begins from the time of the writing.
אִיתְּמַר: מֵאֵימָתַי כְּתוּבָּה מְשַׁמֶּטֶת?
§ The Gemara discusses another dispute between Rav and Shmuel with regard to documents. According to the terms of a marriage contract, a widow is entitled to payment of its value upon the death of her husband. By Torah law, all outstanding debts are canceled at the close of the Sabbatical Year. A woman need not take her marriage settlement as soon as her husband dies. The issue at hand is at what point the marriage contract generates a concrete debt that will be canceled by the Sabbatical Year. It was stated: From when is the debt established by a marriage contract canceled in the Sabbatical Year?
רַב אָמַר: מִשֶּׁתִּפְגּוֹם – וְתִזְקוֹף. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: פָּגְמָה – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא זָקְפָה, זָקְפָה – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּגְמָה.
Rav says: The marriage contract becomes like a debt and will be canceled in the Sabbatical Year from the time when the woman collects partial payment and establishes the rest as a debt in court. And Shmuel says: This occurs when she either collects partial payment although she did not establish it as debt, or she established the entire value of the marriage contract as a debt in court although she did not collect partial payment.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב, תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב: מֵאֵימָתַי כְּתוּבָּה מְשַׁמֶּטֶת? מִשֶּׁתִּפְגּוֹם וְתִזְקוֹף. פָּגְמָה וְלֹא זָקְפָה, זָקְפָה וְלֹא פָּגְמָה – אֵינָהּ מְשַׁמֶּטֶת, עַד שֶׁתִּפְגּוֹם וְתִזְקוֹף.
With regard to this dispute, it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: From when is the debt established by a marriage contract canceled? From when she accepts partial payment and establishes the rest as a debt in court. However, if she accepted partial payment but did not establish the debt, or established the debt but did not accept partial payment, then it is not canceled until she accepts partial payment and establishes the debt.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: אוֹנֶס, וּקְנָס, וּפִיתּוּי, וּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה – שֶׁזְּקָפָן בְּמִלְוָה, מְשַׁמְּטִין; וְאִם לָאו – אֵין מְשַׁמְּטִין. מֵאֵימָתַי נִזְקָפִים בְּמִלְוָה? מִשְּׁעַת הַעֲמָדָה בַּדִּין.
It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: If the fine and damages paid by one who commits rape; or the fine paid by one who falsely claims his wife was not a virgin at the time of their wedding; or the fine paid for seduction; or the debt established by a woman’s marriage contract was established as a loan, then the Sabbatical Year cancels it. And if one did not establish these payments as loans, then the Sabbatical Year does not cancel them. From when is it considered that these payments have been established as a loan? From the time of standing trial, because the abstract obligation to pay becomes a debt once the court ruled that one is required to pay.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּתוּבָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין דָּמְיָא – מָה מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין נִכְתָּבִין בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתָּמִין בַּלַּיְלָה, אַף כְּתוּבָּה נִכְתֶּבֶת בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתֶּמֶת בַּלַּיְלָה. כְּתוּבְּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר רַב אִיכְּתוּב בַּיּוֹם וְאִיחֲתוּם בַּלַּיְלָה; הֲוָה רַב הָתָם וְלָא אֲמַר לְהוּ וְלָא מִידֵּי.
§ The Gemara discusses other aspects of the marriage contract. Shmuel said: A marriage contract is considered to be like a court enactment. Just as court enactments may be written during the day and then signed at night, and the fact that the writing and signing were not performed on the same day does not present a problem, so too, a marriage contract may be written during the day and then signed at night. It is told: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav’s marriage contract was written during the day and then signed at night, and Rav was there and he did not say anything to the people who wrote and signed it. This indicates that Rav agrees with the ruling of Shmuel.
לֵימָא כִּשְׁמוּאֵל סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? עֲסוּקִין בְּאוֹתוֹ עִנְיָן הֲווֹ. דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר רַבִּי צָדוֹק: לֹא שָׁנוּ, אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁאֵין עֲסוּקִין בְּאוֹתוֹ עִנְיָן, אֲבָל עֲסוּקִין בְּאוֹתוֹ עִנְיָן – כָּשֵׁר.
The Gemara asks: Shall we say he holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara rejects this: This cannot be proven from here because the scribe and witnesses were continuously engaged in that matter of writing the marriage contract, from when it was written in the day until they signed it at night, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok said: The Sages taught that a document written during the day and signed at night is invalid only when the scribe and witnesses were not continuously engaged in that matter, but if they were continuously engaged in that matter until nightfall, then it is valid.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר: אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? קָסָבַר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ, שׁוּב אֵין לוֹ פֵּירוֹת.
§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Shimon deems valid a bill of divorce written during the day and signed at night. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? He holds that once the husband has decided to divorce her, he no longer has the rights to the produce from his wife’s property, and it is clear that he has decided to divorce her when he writes a bill of divorce. Consequently, the woman obtains the rights to the produce from the moment the bill of divorce was written, regardless of when it was signed.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא הִכְשִׁיר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא לְאַלְתַּר, אֲבָל מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים – לֹא;
Reish Lakish says: Rabbi Shimon deems such a bill of divorce valid only if it is signed immediately, when the witnesses signed the bill of divorce during the night after it was written. However, if the delay in signing was from now, i.e., when the bill of divorce was written, until ten days have elapsed, i.e., when there is an extended delay, he does not deem it valid.
חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא פִּיֵּיס. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים; אִם אִיתָא דְּפַיֵּיס – קָלָא אִית לַיהּ לְמִילְּתָא.
Why not? Because we are concerned that perhaps he appeased his wife and engaged in sexual intercourse with her, thereby invalidating the bill of divorce. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if the delay in signing was from now until ten days later Rabbi Shimon deems it valid. There is no concern that he appeased her because if it is so that he appeased her, then the matter becomes public knowledge, and all would hear of it.
אִיתְּמַר: אָמַר לַעֲשָׂרָה ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״; אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁנַיִם מִשּׁוּם עֵדִים, וְכוּלָּם מִשּׁוּם תְּנַאי. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כּוּלָּם מִשּׁוּם עֵדִים.
§ It was stated that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagreed with regard to the following case: If the husband says to ten men: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He means that all of them should sign the bill of divorce. Two of them function as witnesses, and all the rest of them sign the bill of divorce only due to the stipulation that the husband had stated. He made the bill of divorce dependent upon all of them signing, but he did not mean that ten men need to actually function as witnesses. And Reish Lakish says: All of them function as witnesses.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״כּוּלְּכֶם״; וְהָא תְּנַן, אָמַר לַעֲשָׂרָה: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב וּשְׁנַיִם חוֹתְמִין! אֶלָּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ ״כּוּלְּכֶם״.
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which all of them have to sign? If we say that he did not say to them: All of you, but just said to them: You should write a bill of divorce for my wife, didn’t we learn in a mishna (66b) that if one said to ten people: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, then one would write, and two would sign, and not all ten of them are required to sign. Rather, the case of their dispute is when he said to them: All of you write a bill of divorce for my wife, and in this instance is was taught later on in that mishna that one person writes the bill of divorce and everyone else must sign it.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – דַּחֲתוּם בֵּי תְרֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ בְּיוֹמֵיהּ, וְאִינָךְ מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים. מַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם תְּנַאי – כָּשֵׁר; וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם עֵדִים – פָּסוּל.
The Gemara asks: What is the difference between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish; what is the difference if the rest of the men function as witnesses or just in order to fulfill the man’s stipulation? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case where two of them signed on that day and the rest signed not on the day it was written but from now until ten days later. According to the one who says that the other signatures are due to the stipulation, the bill of divorce is valid, because two witnesses signed the bill of divorce on the same day that it was written, and the stipulation was also fulfilled. And according to the one who says that all these people sign due to his wish that they all function as witnesses, it is invalid because not all the witnesses signed the bill of divorce on the day it was written.
אִי נָמֵי – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶם קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם תְּנַאי – כָּשֵׁר; לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם עֵדִים – פָּסוּל.
Alternatively, there is another difference between them, in a case where one of these ten people is found to be a relative of the husband or wife, or is otherwise found to be disqualified to serve as a witness. According to the one who says that the other signatures are due to the stipulation, this bill of divorce is valid because the disqualified person did not serve as a witness. He just signed the bill of divorce in order to fulfill the stipulation, and the bill of divorce has the signature of two qualified witnesses. According to the one who says that all these people sign due to the man’s wish that they all function as witnesses, the bill of divorce would be invalid, as is the case whenever one member of a group of witnesses is disqualified.
אִי חֲתִים בִּתְחִילָּה קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל; אָמְרִי לָהּ כָּשֵׁר, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ פָּסוּל. אָמְרִי לָהּ כָּשֵׁר – תְּנַאי הוּא; אָמְרִי לַהּ פָּסוּל – אָתֵי לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי בִּשְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא.
The Gemara adds another point of dispute: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that the other witnesses sign due to the husband’s stipulation, if a relative or other disqualified witness signed at the beginning, before two valid witnesses had signed, then some say the bill of divorce is valid and some say that it is invalid. Some say that it is valid because the request for ten signatures is a stipulation. Since these ten people are not meant to serve as witnesses and are meant only to fulfill the stipulation, it makes no difference if they signed at the beginning or at the end. Some say that it is invalid because there is a concern that the courts will come to confuse it with typical documents, and they will rely on disqualified witnesses in those cases.
הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ לַעֲשָׂרָה: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״; חֲתוּם בֵּי תְרֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ בְּיוֹמֵיהּ, וְאִינָךְ – מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ:
It is told: There was a certain person who said to ten men: Write a bill of divorce for my wife. Two of them signed that day and the others signed after a delay from now until ten days later. He came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to ask what the halakha is with regard to such a bill of divorce. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him:
